Sign in to follow this  
Bull Gator

Domestic spying

Recommended Posts

Dave Simon explains:

 

http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

 

A snip:

 

 

Having labored as a police reporter in the days before the Patriot Act, I can assure all there has always been a stage before the wiretap, a preliminary process involving the capture, retention and analysis of raw data. It has been so for decades now in this country. The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the FBI and NSA are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. But the legal and moral principles? Same old stuff.

 

Allow for a comparable example, dating to the early 1980s in a place called Baltimore, Maryland.

There, city detectives once began to suspect that major traffickers were using a combination of public pay phones and digital pagers to communicate their business. And they took their suspicions to a judge and obtained court orders — not to monitor any particular suspect, but to instead cull the dialed numbers from the thousands and thousands of calls made to and from certain city pay phones.

Think about it. There is certainly a public expectation of privacy when you pick up a pay phone on the streets of Baltimore, is there not? And certainly, the detectives knew that many, many Baltimoreans were using those pay phones for legitimate telephonic communication. Yet, a city judge had no problem allowing them to place dialed-number recorders on as many pay phones as they felt the need to monitor, knowing that every single number dialed to or from those phones would be captured. So authorized, detectives gleaned the numbers of digital pagers and they began monitoring the incoming digitized numbers on those pagers — even though they had yet to learn to whom those pagers belonged. The judges were okay with that, too, and signed another order allowing the suspect pagers to be “cloned” by detectives, even though in some cases the suspect in possession of the pager was not yet positively identified.

All of that — even in the less fevered, pre-Patriot Act days of yore — was entirely legal. Why?

Because they aren’t listening to the calls.

The whole thing should be read. Bottom line is still that they can do whatever the courts let them do. This may be a lot of phony outrage. May be we had to pass the Patriot Act a couple times to find out what's in it.

No cop is going to chuck a tool that helps him get the bad guys on his own. In fact, not using it would be professional incompetence. The answer will known by Congress either passing a law barring the NSA from doing this or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Obama

 

 

In remarks to reporters at San Jose, where he was scheduled to speak on the Affordable Care Act, Obama bluntly noted that Americans need to be prepared for some privacy tradeoffs if they expect the government to keep them safe.

 

"It is important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience," Obama said. "We are going to have to make some choices as a society. What I can say is that, when evaluating the programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent terrorist activity."

 

From Franklin

 

 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever cited Mother Jones before but this is a must read. It is very disturbing --

 

Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance

 

In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:

 

 

 

* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.

For those who follow the secret and often complex world of high-tech government spying, this was an aha moment. The FISA court Wyden referred to oversees the surveillance programs run by the government, authorizing requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. Wyden's statements led to an obvious conclusion: He had seen a secret FISA court opinion that ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law. But, yet again, Wyden could not publicly identify this program.

"When the government hides court opinions describing unconstitutional government action, America’s national security is harmed," argues the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Enter the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public interest group focused on digital rights. It quickly filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Justice Department for any written opinion or order of the FISA court that held government surveillance was improper or unconstitutional. The Justice Department did not respond, and EFF was forced to file a lawsuit a month later.

It took the Justice Department four months to reply. The government's lawyers noted that they had located records responsive to the request, including a FISA court opinion. But the department was withholding the opinion because it was classified.

EFF pushed ahead with its lawsuit, and in a filing in April, the Justice Department acknowledged that the document in question was an 86-page opinion the FISA court had issued on October 3, 2011. Again, there was no reference to the specific surveillance activity that the court had found improper or unconstitutional. And now the department argued that the opinion was controlled by the FISA court and could only be released by that body, not by the Justice Department or through an order of a federal district court. In other words, leave us alone and take this case to the secret FISA court itself.

This was puzzling to EFF, according to David Sobel, a lawyer for the group. In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union had asked the FISA court to release an opinion, and the court had informed the ACLU to take the matter up with the Justice Department and work through a district court, if necessary.

So there was a contradiction within the government. "It's a bizarre catch-22," Sobel says. On its website, EFF compared this situation to a Kafka plot: "A public trapped between conflicting rules and a secret judicial body, with little transparency or public oversight, seems like a page ripped from The Trial."

Before EFF could get a ruling on whether this opinion can be declassified and released, it had to first sort out this Alice in Wonderland situation. Consequently, last month, it filed a motion with the FISA court to resolve this aspect of the case. "We want the FISA court to say that if the district court says the opinion should be released, there is noting in its rules that prevents that," Sobel says. Then EFF can resume its battle with the Justice Department in federal district court for the release of the opinion. The Justice Department was ordered by the FISA court to respond by June 7 to the motion EFF submitted to the FISA court.

Currently, given the conflicting positions of the Justice Department and the FISA court, Sobel notes, "there is no court you can go to to challenge the secrecy" protecting an opinion noting that the government acted unconstitutionally. On its website, EFF observes, "Granted, it's likely that some of the information contained within FISC opinions should be kept secret; but, when the government hides court opinions describing unconstitutional government action, America's national security is harmed: not by disclosure of our intelligence capabilities, but through the erosion of our commitment to the rule of law."

As news reports emerge about the massive phone records and internet surveillance programs—each of which began during the Bush administration and were carried out under congressional oversight and FISA court review—critics on the left and right have accused the government of going too far in sweeping up data, including information related to Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. There's no telling if the 86-page FISA court opinion EFF seeks is directly related to either of these two programs, but EFF's pursuit of this document shows just how difficult it is—perhaps impossible—for the public to pry from the government information about domestic surveillance gone wrong. (link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post - one of the repercussions of the NSA leak is that foreign governements are going to get really pissed off that we're tracking all their calls and internet traffic. This is a national issue at the moment, but I expect it will be an international problem for us in the next week or so.

 

I hope Jay Carney is enjoying a bender tonight and can sleep all day tomorrow. He'll need the rest come Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post - one of the repercussions of the NSA leak is that foreign governements are going to get really pissed off that we're tracking all their calls and internet traffic. This is a national issue at the moment, but I expect it will be an international problem for us in the next week or so.

 

I hope Jay Carney is enjoying a bender tonight and can sleep all day tomorrow. He'll need the rest come Monday.

Given the colors on that heat map id say we don't give a fuck about what they think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaking is bad.

 

Sometimes...............

 

I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time we agree, if you were not being sarcastic.

 

I'm not sure the repercussions of outing the NSA won't be detrimental to the security of the country. Time will tell.

 

My gut tells me that when you have the NSA and the FBI working together, and DHS is militarizing -- border security, Coast Guard and other domestic protections are OK -- we've got a serious problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some leaking is bad. I am worried about what I've learned this week. I still trust our government but the revelations give me pause. I believe the public is better off for knowing but NSA has a problem/mole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Leaking is bad.

 

Sometimes...............

 

I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time we agree, if you were not being sarcastic.

 

I'm not sure the repercussions of outing the NSA won't be detrimental to the security of the country. Time will tell.

 

My gut tells me that when you have the NSA and the FBI working together, and DHS is militarizing -- border security, Coast Guard and other domestic protections are OK -- we've got a serious problem.

 

I would be interested in the release of any presidential findings related to the surveillance programs in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Leaking is bad.

 

Sometimes...............

 

I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time we agree, if you were not being sarcastic.

 

I'm not sure the repercussions of outing the NSA won't be detrimental to the security of the country. Time will tell.

 

My gut tells me that when you have the NSA and the FBI working together, and DHS is militarizing -- border security, Coast Guard and other domestic protections are OK -- we've got a serious problem.

 

I would be interested in the release of any presidential findings related to the surveillance programs in question.

 

Don't hold your breath. I'd like to see a detente between the press and the WH. The press should not be so eager to toss out any more top secret revelations and the WH should come as clean as it can without sacrificing national security any more than it already has been sacrificed.

 

I don't want to hear about Bush initiated this or Congress passed that. I want to hear what the administration will do now to get the NSA out of our domestic privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Leaking is bad.

 

Sometimes...............

 

I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time we agree, if you were not being sarcastic.

 

I'm not sure the repercussions of outing the NSA won't be detrimental to the security of the country. Time will tell.

 

My gut tells me that when you have the NSA and the FBI working together, and DHS is militarizing -- border security, Coast Guard and other domestic protections are OK -- we've got a serious problem.

 

I would be interested in the release of any presidential findings related to the surveillance programs in question.

 

Don't hold your breath. I'd like to see a detente between the press and the WH. The press should not be so eager to toss out any more top secret revelations and the WH should come as clean as it can without sacrificing national security any more than it already has been sacrificed.

 

I don't want to hear about Bush initiated this or Congress passed that. I want to hear what the administration will do now to get the NSA out of our domestic privacy.

 

Yes. Keep it legal. There will be a President with the correct letter behind his name again, someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Leaking is bad.

 

Sometimes...............

 

I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time we agree, if you were not being sarcastic.

 

I'm not sure the repercussions of outing the NSA won't be detrimental to the security of the country. Time will tell.

 

My gut tells me that when you have the NSA and the FBI working together, and DHS is militarizing -- border security, Coast Guard and other domestic protections are OK -- we've got a serious problem.

 

I would be interested in the release of any presidential findings related to the surveillance programs in question.

 

Don't hold your breath. I'd like to see a detente between the press and the WH. The press should not be so eager to toss out any more top secret revelations and the WH should come as clean as it can without sacrificing national security any more than it already has been sacrificed.

 

I don't want to hear about Bush initiated this or Congress passed that. I want to hear what the administration will do now to get the NSA out of our domestic privacy.

 

Yes. Keep it legal. There will be a President with the correct letter behind his name again, someday.

 

Perfect. When the Justice department went after Rosen and tagged AP reporters' phones, we can blame John Adams. Google Alien and Sedition Acts.

 

Or maybe we should just keep blaming previous administrations until we all have cameras and microphones stapled to our foreheads as a condition to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want the laws to remain the same and only want Obama to stop using it, like I said. That you want no understanding of how the laws came to be "goes without saying"...as they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want the laws to remain the same and only want Obama to stop using it, like I said. That you want no understanding of how the laws came to be "goes without saying"...as they say.

 

Who said anything like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Simon explains:

 

http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

 

A snip:

 

 

Having labored as a police reporter in the days before the Patriot Act, I can assure all there has always been a stage before the wiretap, a preliminary process involving the capture, retention and analysis of raw data. It has been so for decades now in this country. The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the FBI and NSA are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. But the legal and moral principles? Same old stuff.

 

Allow for a comparable example, dating to the early 1980s in a place called Baltimore, Maryland.

There, city detectives once began to suspect that major traffickers were using a combination of public pay phones and digital pagers to communicate their business. And they took their suspicions to a judge and obtained court orders — not to monitor any particular suspect, but to instead cull the dialed numbers from the thousands and thousands of calls made to and from certain city pay phones.

Think about it. There is certainly a public expectation of privacy when you pick up a pay phone on the streets of Baltimore, is there not? And certainly, the detectives knew that many, many Baltimoreans were using those pay phones for legitimate telephonic communication. Yet, a city judge had no problem allowing them to place dialed-number recorders on as many pay phones as they felt the need to monitor, knowing that every single number dialed to or from those phones would be captured. So authorized, detectives gleaned the numbers of digital pagers and they began monitoring the incoming digitized numbers on those pagers — even though they had yet to learn to whom those pagers belonged. The judges were okay with that, too, and signed another order allowing the suspect pagers to be “cloned” by detectives, even though in some cases the suspect in possession of the pager was not yet positively identified.

All of that — even in the less fevered, pre-Patriot Act days of yore — was entirely legal. Why?

Because they aren’t listening to the calls.

The whole thing should be read. Bottom line is still that they can do whatever the courts let them do. This may be a lot of phony outrage. May be we had to pass the Patriot Act a couple times to find out what's in it.

No cop is going to chuck a tool that helps him get the bad guys on his own. In fact, not using it would be professional incompetence. The answer will known by Congress either passing a law barring the NSA from doing this or not.

 

I don't know how he could come to the conclusion it is the "same old stuff". In the example he used, the police:

 

1. had evidence the dealers were using specific pay phones

2. they got a warrant from a non-secret court

3. the phones in question were public pay phones

4. the cloned pagers were specifically suspected of being involved in the drug trade.

 

In this case:

 

1. no warrant or warrant only from secret court, no public oversight

2. no specific suspicion, all electronic communications are seized and examined

3. the communications tracked originate from private devices, not public payphones

 

My wife worked for the DEA in the 90s specifically with their wire monitoring. Sure they got taps and call logs on public phones, but they had to have a reason to. There were also tons of rules and oversight they had to deal with even when they were on a live wiretap. There were plenty of times where constitutional protections trumped the opportunity to capture evidence. It is absolutely nothing like what we have going on here where the govt is on a fishing expedition and the entire American populace is the pool they are fishing in.

 

I really, really, do not understand how anyone on either side of the aisle can excuse what is going on. I just don't. We are truly becoming our own enemy here. We are putting ourselves into a police state where the govt truly is the nanny/parent. I have always believed that the federal govt has a role in protecting workers, protecting the environment, and regulating finance, among other things. And so I have for the most part voted Democrat. But more and more, I find myself aligned with Libertarians on the issues I hold most dear, namely protecting the BoR, as neither of the major parties seems at all interested in it any longer. I found Obama's addressing of this latest issue insulting, to say the least. His explanation or defense of this is a perversion of our nation's most important principles. I do not expect 100% security, I do expect the govt to abide by the BoR 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You want the laws to remain the same and only want Obama to stop using it, like I said. That you want no understanding of how the laws came to be "goes without saying"...as they say.

 

Who said anything like that?

As is often the case, it isn't what you say that counts, it is what others choose to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dave Simon explains:

 

http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

 

A snip:

 

 

Having labored as a police reporter in the days before the Patriot Act, I can assure all there has always been a stage before the wiretap, a preliminary process involving the capture, retention and analysis of raw data. It has been so for decades now in this country. The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the FBI and NSA are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. But the legal and moral principles? Same old stuff.

 

Allow for a comparable example, dating to the early 1980s in a place called Baltimore, Maryland.

There, city detectives once began to suspect that major traffickers were using a combination of public pay phones and digital pagers to communicate their business. And they took their suspicions to a judge and obtained court orders — not to monitor any particular suspect, but to instead cull the dialed numbers from the thousands and thousands of calls made to and from certain city pay phones.

Think about it. There is certainly a public expectation of privacy when you pick up a pay phone on the streets of Baltimore, is there not? And certainly, the detectives knew that many, many Baltimoreans were using those pay phones for legitimate telephonic communication. Yet, a city judge had no problem allowing them to place dialed-number recorders on as many pay phones as they felt the need to monitor, knowing that every single number dialed to or from those phones would be captured. So authorized, detectives gleaned the numbers of digital pagers and they began monitoring the incoming digitized numbers on those pagers — even though they had yet to learn to whom those pagers belonged. The judges were okay with that, too, and signed another order allowing the suspect pagers to be “cloned” by detectives, even though in some cases the suspect in possession of the pager was not yet positively identified.

All of that — even in the less fevered, pre-Patriot Act days of yore — was entirely legal. Why?

Because they aren’t listening to the calls.

The whole thing should be read. Bottom line is still that they can do whatever the courts let them do. This may be a lot of phony outrage. May be we had to pass the Patriot Act a couple times to find out what's in it.

No cop is going to chuck a tool that helps him get the bad guys on his own. In fact, not using it would be professional incompetence. The answer will known by Congress either passing a law barring the NSA from doing this or not.

 

I don't know how he could come to the conclusion it is the "same old stuff". In the example he used, the police:

 

1. had evidence the dealers were using specific pay phones

2. they got a warrant from a non-secret court

3. the phones in question were public pay phones

4. the cloned pagers were specifically suspected of being involved in the drug trade.

 

In this case:

 

1. no warrant or warrant only from secret court, no public oversight

2. no specific suspicion, all electronic communications are seized and examined

3. the communications tracked originate from private devices, not public payphones

 

My wife worked for the DEA in the 90s specifically with their wire monitoring. Sure they got taps and call logs on public phones, but they had to have a reason to. There were also tons of rules and oversight they had to deal with even when they were on a live wiretap. There were plenty of times where constitutional protections trumped the opportunity to capture evidence. It is absolutely nothing like what we have going on here where the govt is on a fishing expedition and the entire American populace is the pool they are fishing in.

 

I really, really, do not understand how anyone on either side of the aisle can excuse what is going on. I just don't. We are truly becoming our own enemy here. We are putting ourselves into a police state where the govt truly is the nanny/parent. I have always believed that the federal govt has a role in protecting workers, protecting the environment, and regulating finance, among other things. And so I have for the most part voted Democrat. But more and more, I find myself aligned with Libertarians on the issues I hold most dear, namely protecting the BoR, as neither of the major parties seems at all interested in it any longer. I found Obama's addressing of this latest issue insulting, to say the least. His explanation or defense of this is a perversion of our nation's most important principles. I do not expect 100% security, I do expect the govt to abide by the BoR 100%.

 

Have to read the whole thing. That's just a snip. He gets to where the line is, tapping. Logs are not treated the same. Ask your wife about the lack of need for warrants to look at an entire community's electric utility bills to spot home-growers.

 

It's excusable in the sense that it's legal. Maybe we feel it was a mistake to pass and renew the Patriot Act, but have failed to express that view to our elected representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to read the whole thing. That's just a snip. He gets to where the line is, tapping. Logs are not treated the same. Ask your wife about the lack of need for warrants to look at an entire community's electric utility bills to spot home-growers.

 

It's excusable in the sense that it's legal. Maybe we feel it was a mistake to pass and renew the Patriot Act, but have failed to express that view to our elected representatives.

 

She worked in Manhattan, all Columbian cartels and Dominican dealers at the time. They did not do anything related to pot growing, but I do know that law enforcement may look at utility usage. Still, while utility usage may be more similar in kind to looking at call logs, it is considerably less invasive. Utility usage only tells you the amount of electricity flowing into the house at various times, it does not tell you whether it is being used to watch tv, run a dishwasher, or run a belt sander. The other thing is that this is not just call logs, it is emails, text messages, web browser histories, search histories, and photos and videos. Email needs now every bit of privacy that paper mail has had in the past. Text messages need to have the same level of privacy afforded them as phone calls have. Whether a court buys into the story that Washington is trying to sell or not is not relevant to whether it is ultimately right or wrong, at least in my opinion. Courts may be wrong, sometimes very wrong. Unless we turn this back starting now, as more and more of our dialogue moves across a digital medium, the 4th will become a completely useless appendage which only reminds us there was a time when people wrote letters, mailed them, and waited several days for the recipient to get them and read them. It would very much be like claiming the 2nd amendment only covers smooth bore muskets, or that the first amendment only covers standing on soapboxes and shouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's excusable in the sense that it's legal. Maybe we feel it was a mistake to pass and renew the Patriot Act, but have failed to express that view to our elected representatives.

 

Politicians write the laws.

 

I don't find it excusable. Perhaps noone will be punished for passing stupid laws but, the sight of a congressman asking if the DOJ could investigate them or tap their phones was despicable and stupid. Particularly given the number times that politicians have been caught out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/

 

Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never voted for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill.

 

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have to read the whole thing. That's just a snip. He gets to where the line is, tapping. Logs are not treated the same. Ask your wife about the lack of need for warrants to look at an entire community's electric utility bills to spot home-growers.

 

It's excusable in the sense that it's legal. Maybe we feel it was a mistake to pass and renew the Patriot Act, but have failed to express that view to our elected representatives.

 

She worked in Manhattan, all Columbian cartels and Dominican dealers at the time. They did not do anything related to pot growing, but I do know that law enforcement may look at utility usage. Still, while utility usage may be more similar in kind to looking at call logs, it is considerably less invasive. Utility usage only tells you the amount of electricity flowing into the house at various times, it does not tell you whether it is being used to watch tv, run a dishwasher, or run a belt sander. The other thing is that this is not just call logs, it is emails, text messages, web browser histories, search histories, and photos and videos. Email needs now every bit of privacy that paper mail has had in the past. Text messages need to have the same level of privacy afforded them as phone calls have. Whether a court buys into the story that Washington is trying to sell or not is not relevant to whether it is ultimately right or wrong, at least in my opinion. Courts may be wrong, sometimes very wrong. Unless we turn this back starting now, as more and more of our dialogue moves across a digital medium, the 4th will become a completely useless appendage which only reminds us there was a time when people wrote letters, mailed them, and waited several days for the recipient to get them and read them. It would very much be like claiming the 2nd amendment only covers smooth bore muskets, or that the first amendment only covers standing on soapboxes and shouting.

 

 

I agree, but consider this:

 

It's probably at bit late to tell the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community to stop gathering all this info, but let's say we do. We get our representatives to write laws saying our emails should not be read, and they won't be.

 

Except that spies steamed envelopes open in the good old daze and they would probably read emails even if Congress wrote a law saying they should not.

 

The good news is that we have better envelopes these daze, in the form of encryption programs like PGP. With PGP, only two people really needs to agree to take responsibility for your emails being private: you and your recipient. No need to get the government to agree, nor any need to trust them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Have to read the whole thing. That's just a snip. He gets to where the line is, tapping. Logs are not treated the same. Ask your wife about the lack of need for warrants to look at an entire community's electric utility bills to spot home-growers.

 

It's excusable in the sense that it's legal. Maybe we feel it was a mistake to pass and renew the Patriot Act, but have failed to express that view to our elected representatives.

 

She worked in Manhattan, all Columbian cartels and Dominican dealers at the time. They did not do anything related to pot growing, but I do know that law enforcement may look at utility usage. Still, while utility usage may be more similar in kind to looking at call logs, it is considerably less invasive. Utility usage only tells you the amount of electricity flowing into the house at various times, it does not tell you whether it is being used to watch tv, run a dishwasher, or run a belt sander. The other thing is that this is not just call logs, it is emails, text messages, web browser histories, search histories, and photos and videos. Email needs now every bit of privacy that paper mail has had in the past. Text messages need to have the same level of privacy afforded them as phone calls have. Whether a court buys into the story that Washington is trying to sell or not is not relevant to whether it is ultimately right or wrong, at least in my opinion. Courts may be wrong, sometimes very wrong. Unless we turn this back starting now, as more and more of our dialogue moves across a digital medium, the 4th will become a completely useless appendage which only reminds us there was a time when people wrote letters, mailed them, and waited several days for the recipient to get them and read them. It would very much be like claiming the 2nd amendment only covers smooth bore muskets, or that the first amendment only covers standing on soapboxes and shouting.

 

 

I agree, but consider this:

 

It's probably at bit late to tell the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community to stop gathering all this info, but let's say we do. We get our representatives to write laws saying our emails should not be read, and they won't be.

 

Except that spies steamed envelopes open in the good old daze and they would probably read emails even if Congress wrote a law saying they should not.

 

The good news is that we have better envelopes these daze, in the form of encryption programs like PGP. With PGP, only two people really needs to agree to take responsibility for your emails being private: you and your recipient. No need to get the government to agree, nor any need to trust them.

 

Half the folks around here are going to believe anything from a guy named Zimmerman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with spying as long as I'm the one doing the spying,.. as this makes me feel omnipresent (and besides the feeling of power over other peoples lives is a fucking rush)..... :rolleyes: I only object when it's someone else doing the spying.. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I agree, but consider this:

 

It's probably at bit late to tell the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community to stop gathering all this info, but let's say we do. We get our representatives to write laws saying our emails should not be read, and they won't be.

 

Except that spies steamed envelopes open in the good old daze and they would probably read emails even if Congress wrote a law saying they should not.

 

The good news is that we have better envelopes these daze, in the form of encryption programs like PGP. With PGP, only two people really needs to agree to take responsibility for your emails being private: you and your recipient. No need to get the government to agree, nor any need to trust them.

 

Encryption can definitely make snooping more difficult, but there is a substantial amount of overhead involved. Most folks are not going to undertake that kind of effort, but the knowledge that what they write is being monitored does start to subtly affect what they say If they know there is even a small chance that someone other than the intended recipient will read it. Over time those subtle changes in communication affect the nature of our society. It stifles creativity, dissent, and original thought. It is not at all about worrying whether someone at the NSA is checking out the boob pic my wife texts me to brighten up a day of boring client meetings, it is about changing the direction our society is headed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/

 

Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never voted for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill.

 

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

This whole episode coupled with the IRS scandal reeks of the East German Ministry for State Security. STASI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but consider this:

 

It's probably at bit late to tell the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community to stop gathering all this info, but let's say we do. We get our representatives to write laws saying our emails should not be read, and they won't be.

 

Except that spies steamed envelopes open in the good old daze and they would probably read emails even if Congress wrote a law saying they should not.

 

The good news is that we have better envelopes these daze, in the form of encryption programs like PGP. With PGP, only two people really needs to agree to take responsibility for your emails being private: you and your recipient. No need to get the government to agree, nor any need to trust them.

 

I disagree with you Tom. Yes, people CAN spy on you if they really want to just as they could steam open letters before. The difference was the Gov't is supposed to be prohibited from "spying" on its own people without a warrant and a specific reason. So yes, in terms of absolute security an email is no more private than a mailed letter to a determined spy. But that's irrelevant when you're talking about a gov't snooping on its citizens just because they can. The bedrock principle of our justice system is you cannot throw out a dragnet and scoop up everyone to see if they are doing something wrong. You need to be very specific and targeted and have a good reason to be suspicious before you can intrude in their privacy. SO YES - I DO expect gov't to stay the fuck out of my email, cell phone calls and text messages.

 

And btw - the NSA would laugh at your email encryption if they really wanted to read it.

 

Looks like McCabe called me out a couple hundred posts ago about why I wasn't outraged. I am, but it's a simmer since I thought the Patriot Act was flawed from it's inception, and even it's renewed form. Even the name: Department of Homeland Security has a bit of a Nazi feel to it.

 

What's surprising to me is that anyone is surprised by these revelations - at all. We discussed on the this forum the Act. We discussed the big ass data center in Utah (what else would they do with that thing?)

 

The horse has left the barn and there is little to do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I agree, but consider this:

 

It's probably at bit late to tell the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community to stop gathering all this info, but let's say we do. We get our representatives to write laws saying our emails should not be read, and they won't be.

 

Except that spies steamed envelopes open in the good old daze and they would probably read emails even if Congress wrote a law saying they should not.

 

The good news is that we have better envelopes these daze, in the form of encryption programs like PGP. With PGP, only two people really needs to agree to take responsibility for your emails being private: you and your recipient. No need to get the government to agree, nor any need to trust them.

 

Encryption can definitely make snooping more difficult, but there is a substantial amount of overhead involved. Most folks are not going to undertake that kind of effort, but the knowledge that what they write is being monitored does start to subtly affect what they say If they know there is even a small chance that someone other than the intended recipient will read it. Over time those subtle changes in communication affect the nature of our society. It stifles creativity, dissent, and original thought. It is not at all about worrying whether someone at the NSA is checking out the boob pic my wife texts me to brighten up a day of boring client meetings, it is about changing the direction our society is headed.

Pics or it didn't happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Encryption can definitely make snooping more difficult, but there is a substantial amount of overhead involved. Most folks are not going to undertake that kind of effort, but the knowledge that what they write is being monitored does start to subtly affect what they say If they know there is even a small chance that someone other than the intended recipient will read it. Over time those subtle changes in communication affect the nature of our society. It stifles creativity, dissent, and original thought. It is not at all about worrying whether someone at the NSA is checking out the boob pic my wife texts me to brighten up a day of boring client meetings, it is about changing the direction our society is headed.

 

I got PGP for free, used it and even sent it overseas back when that was a felony. No overhead, just a bit of PITA.

 

I know that things I don't encrypt may be read/seen. I still don't shut up.

 

 

I agree...

I disagree with you Tom. Yes, people CAN spy on you if they really want to just as they could steam open letters before. The difference was the Gov't is supposed to be prohibited from "spying" on its own people without a warrant and a specific reason. So yes, in terms of absolute security an email is no more private than a mailed letter to a determined spy. But that's irrelevant when you're talking about a gov't snooping on its citizens just because they can. The bedrock principle of our justice system is you cannot throw out a dragnet and scoop up everyone to see if they are doing something wrong. You need to be very specific and targeted and have a good reason to be suspicious before you can intrude in their privacy. SO YES - I DO expect gov't to stay the fuck out of my email, cell phone calls and text messages.

 

And btw - the NSA would laugh at your email encryption if they really wanted to read it.

 

I put back the part of my reply that you cut out and cut out the rest.

 

We really don't disagree, which is why my response to Len began with the words "I agree." I think text messages should be considered papers and effects under the fourth amendment.

 

We don't know what the NSA's true code-breaking abilities are, but math geeks seem to think it would take a huge amount of processing power to complete a successful brute-force attack on PGP or similar encryption software. It's not unbreakable, but not exactly laughable either. That's why it was a felony under our munitions laws for me to email it to Anguilla. ;)

 

Mark brings up a good point on this topic about the difference between actually reading emails or tapping conversations and just collecting metadata on who has been contacting whom, and how. Collecting actual content is more intrusive, but does the less intrusive nature of metadata mean it should be less protected? The government and courts say yes. I say vote Libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Encryption can definitely make snooping more difficult, but there is a substantial amount of overhead involved. Most folks are not going to undertake that kind of effort, but the knowledge that what they write is being monitored does start to subtly affect what they say If they know there is even a small chance that someone other than the intended recipient will read it. Over time those subtle changes in communication affect the nature of our society. It stifles creativity, dissent, and original thought. It is not at all about worrying whether someone at the NSA is checking out the boob pic my wife texts me to brighten up a day of boring client meetings, it is about changing the direction our society is headed.

 

I got PGP for free, used it and even sent it overseas back when that was a felony. No overhead, just a bit of PITA.

 

I know that things I don't encrypt may be read/seen. I still don't shut up.

 

The PITA is the overhead. Overhead in this case would include convincing everyone you communicate with to use it, teaching people to use it, and taking the time to use it. I am sure there are some folks who are not affected or are less affected by being watched, but most are. Take any two people put them in separate rooms, one with monitoring cameras and one without, with a pile of clay and tell them to make something with it. The person being monitored will nearly always be less creative, try fewer ideas out, and be more self conscious. When that is applied to the society as a whole, it is a really bad thing. We want people to be willing to experiment, to not be looking over their shoulder all the time, to try new things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question; Is this our data? Is it possible that we've signed away title to these records via user agreements (that most people don't read) with the service providers so that these companies can search, parse, analyze and sell, or give, that data to whomever they wish. Including another private company to search the data and give the results to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question; Is this our data? Is it possible that we've signed away title to these records via user agreements (that most people don't read) with the service providers so that these companies can search, parse, analyze and sell, or give, that data to whomever they wish. Including another private company to search the data and give the results to the government.

 

That's such a good question, I await the results of your research.

 

When you extend the use of metadata beyond terrorism, you have a very powerful tool for finding other members of a variety of organized criminal activities, including, but not limited to, being a conservative or libertarian.

 

Last night, my wife got a call from an unknown number. It was probably a wrong number, but what if it was from a member of a group being monitored after the fact who was dead - how would you ever convince the SWAT team of your innocence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DUH...... How do you convince when you are dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question; Is this our data? Is it possible that we've signed away title to these records via user agreements (that most people don't read) with the service providers so that these companies can search, parse, analyze and sell, or give, that data to whomever they wish. Including another private company to search the data and give the results to the government.

 

 

The "Postcard" analogy? When you send something through the mail that isn't enclosed in an envelope it's not "private". How that translates to the intertubes.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question; Is this our data? Is it possible that we've signed away title to these records via user agreements (that most people don't read) with the service providers so that these companies can search, parse, analyze and sell, or give, that data to whomever they wish. Including another private company to search the data and give the results to the government.

 

The first thing you should do today is review just who has access to your data and then appraise who promises to keep your information private. The ones who don't protect your privacy, dump them and urge everyone else you know to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Google, Apple, Microsoft and Yahoo all use your data. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those services are avidly denying involvement in Prism," but as one career officer who spoke to the Washington Post said: They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

yup and more. Almost tinfoil hat scary.

 

edited to add:

 

Wait til Google Glass get's more mainstream. THAT will blow your silly little mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google gets props for some attempt at transparency. They released this statement this morning, but most likely because they fear foreign business backlash and not out of some libertarian pursuit of truth.

 

"We therefore ask you to help make it possible for Google to publish in our Transparency Report aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures—in terms of both the number we receive and their scope. Google’s numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

 

Google appreciates that you authorized the recent disclosure of general numbers for national security letters. There have been no adverse consequences arising from their publication, and in fact more companies are receiving your approval to do so as a result of Google’s initiative. Transparency here will likewise serve the public interest without harming national security."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-go"ogle-to.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian Spy! I knew it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

What would people say if you knew the government had root level access to every pc/laptop etc and access to all your passwords for every website you visit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google gets props for some attempt at transparency. They released this statement this morning, but most likely because they fear foreign business backlash and not out of some libertarian pursuit of truth.

 

"We therefore ask you to help make it possible for Google to publish in our Transparency Report aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures—in terms of both the number we receive and their scope. Google’s numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

 

Google appreciates that you authorized the recent disclosure of general numbers for national security letters. There have been no adverse consequences arising from their publication, and in fact more companies are receiving your approval to do so as a result of Google’s initiative. Transparency here will likewise serve the public interest without harming national security."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-go"ogle-to.html

Third, we now know that Silicon Valley, and the telecommunications industry, are the key to the Obama strategy for total information awareness. In fact, the internet companies, and the phone companies, were the spearpoint for PRISM. No, wait, that’s not the right image. Let’s try this: These communications companies put peepholes into all of our private lives, through which Uncle Sam could sneak a peek. Every e-mail, every phone call, every text-message--the government knows about them all.

It’s now evident that all these wonderful digital services--many of them, such as Google’s Gmail, given away for free--were, in fact, a kind of Trojan Horse. That is, on the outside, it all seemed like a good deal--but then the real truth comes tumbling out, and it’s too late. Some might recall the rueful lesson of the Trojan War: “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” The rueful lesson of our own time: “Beware of geeks bearing gifts.”

Yes, Big Brother walks among us now, peeking and snooping into everything. And we, innocently and unwittingly, invited Big Brother into our midst.

Fourth, it’s not an accident that these Silicon Valley companies are supporters of Barack Obama. The greatest among these Obama supporters is Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of the largest of these companies, Google. Google gained a lot of traction--the company is now worth nearly $300 billion, and Schmidt owns a good chunk of that--on the slogan, “Don’t be evil.” But now we know better. Indeed, we are reminded of another old piece of wisdom: Be extra careful around the man who protests his virtue too much. And beware the company, too.

Google and all the rest of the Silicon Valleyites say they didn’t know about what was happening, and if you don’t believe that, well, they will then tell you that they didn’t provide “direct access.” Oh, okay, not “direct access”--just full access. And what did the companies get in return for this cooperation with the government? A pat on the head? Or something more? Did any of these companies make any serious attempt to put any sort of limits on what was being snooped, and how it was being utilized?

Let’s remember: All these companies had a lot of leverage, because any one of them had the power to make the PRISM operation, at least some of it, public. But they all chose not to; they all chose to be part of the effort. How come? Patriotism? Or something else?

Fifth, Eric Schmidt, in particular, seems on his way to becoming a major Democratic powerbroker, bringing Silicon Valley smarts--and who knows what else--into the realm of partisan campaigning. Schmidt is so into this president that he snapped up the 2012 Obama campaign’s data analytics team--hired the whole Chicago group--and has now launched them in a new company. The company, Civis Analytics, will work on various for-profit and non-profit projects, including helping the Obama administration dragoon young people into Obamacare. And oh yes, Civis will also work on political campaigns--but only for Democrats...Pat Caddell

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/The-Fuse-Has-Been-Lit-Seven-Critical-Points-on-Uncle-Sam-s-Spying-Program

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I pointed out the other day that Google had hired the entire Obama data mining staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Google gets props for some attempt at transparency. They released this statement this morning, but most likely because they fear foreign business backlash and not out of some libertarian pursuit of truth.

 

"We therefore ask you to help make it possible for Google to publish in our Transparency Report aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures—in terms of both the number we receive and their scope. Google’s numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

 

Google appreciates that you authorized the recent disclosure of general numbers for national security letters. There have been no adverse consequences arising from their publication, and in fact more companies are receiving your approval to do so as a result of Google’s initiative. Transparency here will likewise serve the public interest without harming national security."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-go"ogle-to.html

Third, we now know that Silicon Valley, and the telecommunications industry, are the key to the Obama strategy for total information awareness. In fact, the internet companies, and the phone companies, were the spearpoint for PRISM. No, wait, that’s not the right image. Let’s try this: These communications companies put peepholes into all of our private lives, through which Uncle Sam could sneak a peek. Every e-mail, every phone call, every text-message--the government knows about them all.

It’s now evident that all these wonderful digital services--many of them, such as Google’s Gmail, given away for free--were, in fact, a kind of Trojan Horse. That is, on the outside, it all seemed like a good deal--but then the real truth comes tumbling out, and it’s too late. Some might recall the rueful lesson of the Trojan War: “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” The rueful lesson of our own time: “Beware of geeks bearing gifts.”

Yes, Big Brother walks among us now, peeking and snooping into everything. And we, innocently and unwittingly, invited Big Brother into our midst.

Fourth, it’s not an accident that these Silicon Valley companies are supporters of Barack Obama. The greatest among these Obama supporters is Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of the largest of these companies, Google. Google gained a lot of traction--the company is now worth nearly $300 billion, and Schmidt owns a good chunk of that--on the slogan, “Don’t be evil.” But now we know better. Indeed, we are reminded of another old piece of wisdom: Be extra careful around the man who protests his virtue too much. And beware the company, too.

Google and all the rest of the Silicon Valleyites say they didn’t know about what was happening, and if you don’t believe that, well, they will then tell you that they didn’t provide “direct access.” Oh, okay, not “direct access”--just full access. And what did the companies get in return for this cooperation with the government? A pat on the head? Or something more? Did any of these companies make any serious attempt to put any sort of limits on what was being snooped, and how it was being utilized?

Let’s remember: All these companies had a lot of leverage, because any one of them had the power to make the PRISM operation, at least some of it, public. But they all chose not to; they all chose to be part of the effort. How come? Patriotism? Or something else?

Fifth, Eric Schmidt, in particular, seems on his way to becoming a major Democratic powerbroker, bringing Silicon Valley smarts--and who knows what else--into the realm of partisan campaigning. Schmidt is so into this president that he snapped up the 2012 Obama campaign’s data analytics team--hired the whole Chicago group--and has now launched them in a new company. The company, Civis Analytics, will work on various for-profit and non-profit projects, including helping the Obama administration dragoon young people into Obamacare. And oh yes, Civis will also work on political campaigns--but only for Democrats...Pat Caddell

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/The-Fuse-Has-Been-Lit-Seven-Critical-Points-on-Uncle-Sam-s-Spying-Program

 

Whores come in red too: http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-biggest-republican-donors-in-the-tech-industry-2012-9?op=1

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/republicans-court-silicon-valley-fo.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog quoting Breitbart talking about SV. Now there's a thought.

I quoted Pat Caddell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we're smearing him for associating with conservatives, don't forget Fox News contributor....That should do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we're smearing him for associating with conservatives, don't forget Fox News contributor....That should do it.

I'm not smearing Pat Caddell for associating with conservatives but then he is associating with conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was reading a current top selling paper back today and it opens up with an interview with former senator frank church being interviewed on meet the press all the way back in 1975.

 

It seems our govt. has being spying on us for a long time.

 

https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/surveillance-timeline

 

https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/surveillance-timeline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys know how the internet works? How every packet of data needs to be read by a router, in many cases, many routers, before being sent to it's destination? And that same router can copy that stream of info and send it somewhere else? You think this is new news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys know how the internet works? How every packet of data needs to be read by a router, in many cases, many routers, before being sent to it's destination? And that same router can copy that stream of info and send it somewhere else? You think this is new news?

some packets contain fragments of lots and lots of packets. To get to the scenario you envision, you need to be real close to the target. The big pipes and routes are cluttered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

............like same datacenter close?

 

 

 

Do you guys know how the internet works? How every packet of data needs to be read by a router, in many cases, many routers, before being sent to it's destination? And that same router can copy that stream of info and send it somewhere else? You think this is new news?

some packets contain fragments of lots and lots of packets. To get to the scenario you envision, you need to be real close to the target. The big pipes and routes are cluttered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you guys know how the internet works? How every packet of data needs to be read by a router, in many cases, many routers, before being sent to it's destination? And that same router can copy that stream of info and send it somewhere else? You think this is new news?

some packets contain fragments of lots and lots of packets. To get to the scenario you envision, you need to be real close to the target. The big pipes and routes are cluttered.

 

Gosh that's funny! It's almost as good as the countdown LEDs on bombs in Hollywood movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glen Greenwalds "Epic Botch".

 

Changes the picture of what was happening a bit. He was sloppy, that's all. Still something to think about in all this.

 

 

large_Nation%20Karl%20Fogel%20slide%20jp

The NSA slide that tech experts say Glenn Greenwald misinterpreted. (The Guardian/NSA, US Federal Government.)

Bloggers and experts in the tech world have been raising an important caveat to a key aspect of Glenn Greenwald’s world-shaking scoop about the NSA’s PRISM story—an aspect my friend Karl Fogel, an open-source software guru, blogger and the proprietor of QuestionCopyright.org, calls an “epic botch” by Greenwald. People outside of the tech world absolutely need to know about this debate too, which is why, though I’m no expert, I’m sharing it with this wider audience. I deeply admire what Greenwald and his team at The Guardian are doing. I write in the interest of helping them do it better.

The “crucial question,” as Fogel frames it in a blog post, is this: “Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data,” as Greenwald says they are, “without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers?” This is what the companies have been denying—in statements that critics have been interpreting as non-denial denials. (Apple: “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.” So what if Apple et al. knew the formal name of the program? And what about indirect access? Or government contractors? And how are they defining “customer data”? Etc.)

Fogel points out that a widely read post to this effect called “Cowards” from the blog Uncrunched—“What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?”—is “mostly wrong.” He says, “It looks like Greenwald and company simply misunderstood an NSA slide [see image at the top of this post for the slide] because they don’t have the technical background to know that ‘servers’ is a generic word and doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as ‘the main servers on which a company’s customer-facing services run.’ The ‘servers’ mentioned in the slide are just lockboxes used for secure data transfer. They have nothing to do with the process of deciding which requests to comply with—they’re just means of securely and efficiently delivering information once a company has decided to do so.”

In other words, this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit: “What the hell are the companies supposed to do?” Fogel jokes. “Put the data on a CD-ROM and mail it to Fort Meade?”

The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSA’s PRISM program works—“the difference,” as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

(I contacted Google to ask about the issue, and a spokesman pointed me to their open letter to Attorney Holder and FBI Director Mueller and another to users, and reiterated, “We refuse to participate in any program—for national security or other reasons—that requires us to provide governments with access to our systems or to install their equipment on our networks. When required to comply with these requests, we deliver that information to the US government—generally through secure FTP transfers and in person. The US government does not have the ability to pull that data directly from our servers or network.” I followed up by asking whether “refusing to participate in any program…that requires us to provide governments with access to our systems or to install their equipment on our networks” includes refusing to provide government contractors with access to our systems or to install their equipment on our networks,” and the spokesman replied, “Yes.”)

Greenwald has not yet made a public evaluation of whether or not he agrees that he made that mistake. [Update: on Twitter, Greenwald linked to this interview with Chris Hayes as evidence that he has; I'll leave it to readers to judge whether they agree that he's answered the criticism.] He owes it to us to do so, with as much speed as practicably possible. It’s not too much to say that the fate of his broader NSA project might hinge on doing so effectively—because the powers that be will find it very easy to seize on this one error to discredit his every NSA revelation, even the ones he nailed dead to rights. (“It’s not like there aren’t legitimate things to complain about here,” as Fogel notes.) Such distraction campaigns are how power does its dirtiest work. Think of the way the questions about the authenticity of the “Killian documents” were able to obscure the fact that George W. Bush actually did go AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard or how the unrelated or how the unrelated killing of a CIA station chief in Greece was used to discredit the congressional investigations of CIA wrongdoing in 1975—cases with which Greenwald should be well-familiar. So, Glenn Greenwald, what’s the word? The fate of our civil liberties may depend on it.



Read more: Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'? | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#ixzz2WEkQ2ZR6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not just collecting metadata.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

 

Incidentally this briefing was set up ny NSA for the enire us senate. 53 of whom decided it was more important to take a long weekend. We have the leadership we deserve.

 

If what the article says is true, we've got some serious, unfathomable shit going on.

 

And how does Captain Tip-of-the-hat feel about all this?

 

Maybe someone on his staff should tear down the wall of plausible deniability and have him actually do his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you RD, but when you have a congress that is more interested in enjoying Father's Day at home, you're not going to get anything out of this that will satisfy you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you RD, but when you have a congress that is more interested in enjoying Father's Day at home, you're not going to get anything out of this that will satisfy you.

 

Congress has been very vocal on both sides of this issue. Our President has made a single statement, answering a question at a press conference. He needs to weigh in.

 

You are correct, BL, that nothing will satisfy me on this. This is not a GOP/DEM political argument, FFS. This is a situation where anyone who's had a Jr. High civics class that spent a week on the Constitution would be able to see that this is way over the top.

 

I'd like to see an immediate cut in NSA budget of at least 30% to encourage them to focus on what they should be doing instead of what they can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with RD this isn't a left/right issue. Bad things happen. I want to stop them but not at the expense of my liberty. 9/11 killed 3000 people. Gun Nutters kill an order of magnitude greater than that EVERY year. Dismantle DPH and announce to the american people what exactly is being surveilled, let us decide if we want that to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am probably pretty mainstream in my opinion about this. I want the government/ law enforcement to have the tools to do their jobs, but I want them both to respect the Constitution not be so resolute in their efforts to ignore it. We are going to learn in the next few months just who wants this done in the right way, and at some point will be able to put faces on who is with the Constitution and who is unconcerned or more in line with business or special interests. At that point, I hope the nation can come together and give those who would tread on our liberties a well deserved boot from public service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am probably pretty mainstream in my opinion about this. I want the government/ law enforcement to have the tools to do their jobs, but I want them both to respect the Constitution not be so resolute in their efforts to ignore it. We are going to learn in the next few months just who wants this done in the right way, and at some point will be able to put faces on who is with the Constitution and who is unconcerned or more in line with business or special interests. At that point, I hope the nation can come together and give those who would tread on our liberties a well deserved boot from public service.

 

BL, really? I don't think NSA was patching calls through to ExxonMobil. This is about our employees in the Gov't deciding they could break the law.

 

 

This will be a defining moment in the history of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I don't think they are breaking the law. Under the patriot act there are a bunch of secret laws that we don't know about. For instance the govt supeoned library records. In doing so it told the librarians that it was a matter of national security and that if they told anyone they were subject to arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I don't think they are breaking the law. Under the patriot act there are a bunch of secret laws that we don't know about. For instance the govt supeoned library records. In doing so it told the librarians that it was a matter of national security and that if they told anyone they were subject to arrest.

 

You might be surprised, but if you check my posts I was very much opposed to the Patriot Act when we realized that having a library card made you suspect.

 

I'd like to hear something from our President. This is a serious situation where we could use some leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I don't think they are breaking the law. Under the patriot act there are a bunch of secret laws that we don't know about. For instance the govt supeoned library records. In doing so it told the librarians that it was a matter of national security and that if they told anyone they were subject to arrest.

 

Why were the librarians keeping those records? Most of them are government too, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not really news, Recall back to 1980, Bamford's "The Puzzle Palace". Zip ahead to the Clinton years when they "needed" the Clipper Chip to safeguard your emails, with their own backdoor. Government has developed a them and us attitude. We need to reassess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sadly I don't think they are breaking the law. Under the patriot act there are a bunch of secret laws that we don't know about. For instance the govt supeoned library records. In doing so it told the librarians that it was a matter of national security and that if they told anyone they were subject to arrest.

Why were the librarians keeping those records? Most of them are government too, eh?

Are you retarded? If they didn't keep records how would they know if you late returning books?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not really news, Recall back to 1980, Bamford's "The Puzzle Palace". Zip ahead to the Clinton years when they "needed" the Clipper Chip to safeguard your emails, with their own backdoor. Government has developed a them and us attitude. We need to reassess.

+1

 

We tend to think of 'government' as our elected officials. Unfortunately, it is apparent that most of them are personable dunces.

 

When congress passes a 3000 page law which includes thousands of references to "the secretary shall decide" you don't really thing that the "Secretary" is going to decide, do you?

 

No, there is an army of bureacrats and lobbyists who will put forth their views and agendas. The staffers roll it up and the secretary rubber stamps it. If people complain to their congressman the secretary just tells them "Well, that's what you told me to do" and it keeps on rolling.

 

Oh, yeah, and those nice civil servants have their own unions. Ones that certainly wouldn't want any TEA party folks getting tax exempt status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sadly I don't think they are breaking the law. Under the patriot act there are a bunch of secret laws that we don't know about. For instance the govt supeoned library records. In doing so it told the librarians that it was a matter of national security and that if they told anyone they were subject to arrest.

Why were the librarians keeping those records? Most of them are government too, eh?

Are you retarded? If they didn't keep records how would they know if you late returning books?

 

They have an inventory problem. They have an inv entory of their books. It's either on the shelf or loaned out. If I borrow a book, they need to know the data about that. When I borrowed it, where I live, etc. Once I return it, it's back on their shelves and they no longer need to have my name associated with the book.

 

So, they need to know the location of their books (and other materials). If they are out on loan they need the details. Once returned, there is no need for them to keep the record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you retarded? Libraries serve the local community they need to know who's checking out what to cater to,the local community. Demographics are hugely important. That said it doesn't need to be shared with the federal govt

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you retarded? Libraries serve the local community they need to know who's checking out what to cater to,the local community. Demographics are hugely important. That said it doesn't need to be shared with the federal govt

 

No, they can tell that from their inventory without keeping anybodies name and address. If they lend out a lot of DIY books, get more. If nobody takes out sailing books, drop them from the inventory. They can see that from the movement of the inventory, unless a book is out in somebodies hands they don't need any information retained on the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook would laugh at your stupid statement.

 

Is facebook the government? Most libraries are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"

 

http://nsa.gov1.info/data/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(It's a parody)

 

Why don't they just friend everybody on facebook and get it delivered?

 

We don't need Facebook. All I have to do is use the words bomb, Obama, Holland Tunnel, rental van, "you sure about those virgins?", pressure cooker, slow fuse, praise allah, and Dick Cheney. Everyone who has posted on this thread is my friend in the eyes of the NSA.

 

Sleep well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of a Chuck Norris joke.

 

Chuck Norris doesn't wear a condom because there is no such thing as protection from Chuck Norris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites